Apr 11, 2006

(Teheran) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that his country has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a milestone in its goal to develop nuclear fuel.

"I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology. This is the result of the Iranian nation's resistance," Ahmadinejad said in a televised address. "Based on international regulations, we will continue our path until we achieve production of industrial-scale enrichment."

Iranian Vice-President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is in charge of the country's nuclear program, said that Iran has produced 110 tons of uranium gas; the gas is then pumped into centrifuges to complete the enrichment process.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the US will "be talking about the way forward with the other members of the Security Council and Germany about how to address this" if Iran continues in its stated nuclear goals.

"Defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world," said McClellan to reporters today. "This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community. Instead, they're moving in the wrong direction. This is a regime that has a long history of hiding its nuclear activities from the international community, and refusing to comply with its international obligations."

20 comments:

The best defense against foreign intervention is acquiring nuclear weapons. However, I am bit skeptical as to the ‘advancements’ Iran made in nuclear technology (i.e. enriching Uranium)---one must suspect lying.

"Defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world,"

For "rest of the world" read "USrael and its satellite states in Western Europe and Australia."

"Rest of the world" does not include Russia, Ukraine (not even post-Orange), Belarus, China, India, Latin America, Africa, etc.

What's amazing is how upfront and transparent Iran is actually being with its nuclear program. Neither Pakistan nor India even acknowledged that they had a nuclear program right up until they conducted their first tests.

I'm going to spare you any lengthy sampling of western reaction to the Iranian president's prophetic remarks on Dec. 13, about Europe's Holocaustolatry. Jerusalem, Moscow, Washington and Berlin are taking the lead in seeing who can outshine the other in denouncing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and threatening sanctions by the European Union and even the UN. This is all pro forma barking which these lap dogs must perform on their hind legs. It is unworthy of verbatim citation, being clownish and servile in the extreme.

The uproar about "Holocaust denial" by President Ahmadinejad is racist to the core. Deborah Lipstadt has subjected the German survivors of the Allied firebombing holocaust in Dresden, Germany to withering scorn, contempt and outright denial, boldly asserting that no holocaust occurred there.

Holocaust denial by Judaics is legitimate, protected speech, because German victims are less than zero in Talmudic eyes. This is true as well of Palestinian victims of the Israeli holocaust against them. One may mock, diminish, suppress and deny Israeli mass murder and the western world will go on its merry way.

What is at stake in this controversy is the exalted status of a master caste of Holy People who alone among the nations of the world, have immunity from empirical and scientific skepticism, such as Lipstadt applies to Dresden and Peres and Sharon apply to the Jenin massacre of 2002, which they call a myth, with no fear of sanctions by the European Union or the UN.

If denial of a holocaust is a crime, and an offense against decency, what then do we do about widespread denial of the Allied and Israeli holocausts against German civilians in WWII and Palestinian civilians in the 21st century?

The Third World is far more sane than the West. Oh, yes, I know, your television is constantly showing you images of car-bombing and suicide-bombing Arabs and from that minuscule slice of the Muslim pie you deduce that Arabs are wild animals etc.

In fact, America and especially Europe are death cultures with self-extinguishing birth rates, i.e. deaths and abortions exceed live births among indigenous whites. People who do not have sufficient spark to reproduce their race are profoundly sick. While Europeans have sleek cars, and trains that run on time, and pride themselves on their hygiene and modernity, they are in fact mentally ill and one manifestation of that pathology, is their support for the infallible religion of Holocaustianity.

Having long ago rejected the infallibility of the Catholic popes, they have now embraced the infallibility of various Judaic popes, from Elie Wiesel to Abe Foxman and the Lubavtich chief rabbi of Russia, to name but a few. None of the wild statements about gas chambers by these religious fanatics may be weighed in the scale of science or historical research. To assess them is mortal sin, abomination and anathema. Abortion, contraception, greed, hatred of the family, these are no longer sins, because the Bible is no longer a document that compels any serious mass allegiance in Europe. The gas chambers alone exert the power of the holy relics of yore, and hence we have the spectacle of half-nude hedonists genuflecting in pious awe before the mystic holy grail that is Auschwitz.

One conceit of modern Europe is its sense of its penchant for irreverent satire. It no longer expresses its superiority over the Third World overtly, as it once did, through philosophy or colonization. In its conceit, it conceives of its superiority nowadays mainly by means of mockery. The Third Worldlings are "so serious and uptight about religion and moral codes," unlike the supposedly free-wheeling, free-thinking Europeans, who delight in satirizing fundamentalism.

This conceit is exploded when we watch the terminal case of rabies which Europe's Zionist lapdogs exhibit in the face of Iran's profanation of "Holocaust" fundamentalism. The shoe is on the other foot and the Europeans cannot take the medicine they dish out when approved heretics like Theo Van Gogh are attacked. When Zionist power attacks heretics like Ernst Zundel, David Irving and the president of Iran, Europe's radical pioneers of the frontiers of liberal freethought crawl back into their claustrophobic holes.

This is not lost on the Third World! At a fundamental level, the people of the developing countries are still alive, are still busy tending to life -- and therefore to the future -- having babies, rearing large families and husbanding the culture that attends that most natural of vocations. They cannot be made to swallow the UN's selective "Holocaust" mythos. To them it is a preposterous, racist and self-indicting set of legends.

A former member of the city council of Tehran, quoted in the Los Angeles Times today, gives voice to what tens of millions are feeling throughout the Middle East, Asia and Africa:

"One of Ahmadinejad's former colleagues on the Tehran City Council...said the Iranian leader truly believed what he said, as do many in the Muslim world. 'This (the 'Holocaust') is a scenario created by the West to justify their strategic interests to take part of Palestine,' Amir Reza Vaezi-Ashtiani said of Israel's existence. 'If it wasn't true, the West wouldn't hurt so bad and react so strongly."

Please read that last sentence again.

The Zionists and their masonic errand boys and rainbow girls are reputed to be cunning chess players, but one of their fatal traits is over-reaction to criticism. As the Israeli lobbyists and ambassadors ring telephones and fax machines around the world, demanding ever greater escalation of anti-Iranian rhetoric, they are confirming every word uttered by the President of Iran on December 13.

The Third World, though deprived of high definition TV and e-mail and cell phones, still knows what Americans and Europeans who are wired to the data hive, do not: that the West sheds not a tear for the survivors of the El Khiam concentration camp operated by Israeli proxies in Lebanon, for the survivors of Ariel Sharon's firebombing holocaust of Beirut in 1982, or for the grieving family of Elie Hobeika, a witness against Sharon in a proposed Belgian war crimes trial who was silenced by Israeli assassins before he could testify.

This double standard, this Talmudic racism, is seared into the guts of the peoples of the Third World to such an extent that no Spielbergian fantasy, no American bribe, no European threat, can shake it from their bowels.

Like their attachment to their children, their tribe and their soil, for these Arabs, Muslims, Persians, Asians, Africans -- and for that matter, many Latin Americans -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bound to be esteemed as the articulator of their rage against a western machine that has steam-rolled their economies and their self-determination for hundreds of years.

Be careful Europeans, Israelis and Americans about how hard you hit Iran on behalf of your fanatical Holocaustolatry -- which you hold above God and the prophets and freedom of speech itself -- beware to what extent you attempt to humiliate the Iranian people and their elected head of state. The blowback may surprise you, and not just in the Middle East.

"As with Spain, you are about to become an object of hatred for the enemies of mankind. Welcome to the real world, you're leaving the "rest of the world" behind."

Socialism doesen't work and never has worked...anywhere. Have you ever lived in a socialist state? I doubt it. Ever seen socialism first hand rather than just read it's theory? Seems that nobody ever tries to escape from a democracy and head for a socialst country. Why do you think that is? You fall into the same catagory of wanna-bee socialist I run into from time to time. A dreamer who thinks that he'll be within the elite who won't be touched by the sadder side of the system. Guess again Kommerade, you'd be nothing more than just another drone feeding the state coffers and nothing more. My question to all these types is "why the hell are you here?" Go to Spain or Italy or, Albania and enjoy the system you tout so much! See you when you get back disappointed!

This is false—you didn’t mention countries such as Norway (yes, Norway is a Socialist country by its chosen economic model).

Have you ever lived in a socialist state?---Sepp

Have you?

Or more importantly, have you ever lived in a purely Capitalist state?

A state with no public education (yes, this is a socialist principle), no minimum wage, no anti-trust laws, no government control over the economy and its short term fluctuations (this includes both fiscal and monetary policy—both would be nonexistent under pure Capitalism).

This kind of economic model (i.e. pure capitalism) is found in only very poor, third world countries.

Seems that nobody ever tries to escape from a democracy and head for a socialst country.---Sepp

Straw man.

Socialism has nothing to do with Democracy, neither does Capitalism---these are economic models, not systems of government.

In fact, Socialism can be purely democratic---people voting on how to allocate the resources instead of the government or Capitalist forces.

Guess again Kommerade, you'd be nothing more than just another drone feeding the state coffers and nothing more.--Sepp

And what are you, Sepp? You have just demonstrated sheer ignorance in this topic---probably because the media equated socialism with Bolshevik communism and then Bolshevik communism with dictatorship and then dictatorship with bad and thus you have the need to ‘kvetch’ every time you hear the word ‘Socialism.’

In fact, the PC term for our economy is a ‘Mixed’ economy (mixed between Socialism and Capitalism)—if we hadn’t adopted socialist reforms then a strong possibly exists that we would have had a communist revolution.

Go to Spain or Italy or, Albania and enjoy the system you tout so much! See you when you get back disappointed!---Sepp

Why don’t you visit a third-world banana republic and extrapolate on the many wonders of Capitalism--- a system we left behind during the great depression.

That's what communists do: they threaten you with communism unless you "reform" to socialism, which is presented as a milder form of communism, which is really a more palatable expression of communism.

Stefan, you are right about communism, socialism, and capitalism being points on a graded scale, not discrete entities.

However, it's tougher to separate government from those attributes than you seem to think. The more market power a government has (via spending or laws), the more it tends to use that power. Note that the world has never seen Communism without Fascism.

What's hurting Africa isn't "pure capitalism," though, it's 1) the kleptocratic dictatorships that have evolved post-colonially (sets up a poor environment for capitalism) and 2) socialist policies of developed nations (farm subsidies come to mind). Look at early 1800's America in your own words: "no public education...no minimum wage, no anti-trust laws, no government control over the economy and its short term fluctuations." We didn't have the kleptocracy...and I'd say we were doing pretty well even before we adopted socialist reforms.

Look at early 1800's America in your own words: "no public education...no minimum wage, no anti-trust laws, no government control over the economy and its short term fluctuations." We didn't have the kleptocracy...and I'd say we were doing pretty well even before we adopted socialist reforms.---Name withheld to protect the guilty

This is a false analogy—before the onset of Industrialization we were mostly an agrarian society. Public education was not needed since it did not increase worker productivity. However, compare Industrialization (late 1800’s to early 1900’s)—child workers, pollution, no sanitation in products, long hours, wild economic fluctuations, small middle class etc.

Which period would you rather live in (holding all technological advancements constant)?

"...the media equated socialism with Bolshevik communism and then Bolshevik communism with dictatorship and then dictatorship with bad"

Well, name us a few "good" dictatorships then since the media has smeared their good names.

Yes I have lived in a socialist country. Great system. 55% income tax, 19% sales tax, hospitals that rank lower the an American vetrinarian's office on the cleanliness scale and even lower for care. Strange you should choose Norway as your model of a socialist utopia. Here's a breakdown:

--The maximum marginal tax rate for individuals, including social security and pension premium,is consequently 49,3 %.If the income in whole or partly is derived from a personal enterprise, the rate of social securityand pension on that part of the income will increase to 10,7 %. The maximum marginal tax ratewill then increase to 52,2 %.--

--The financing of the National Insurance Scheme is based on payments from both employeesand employers, as well as government contributions.The employees’ contribution is 7.8 % of their gross wage.For employers’, contribution rates vary from 14,1 % to 0 %, according to which region of thecountry the individual employee is considered to be resident. On individual wages beyondapproximately NOK 743.000 (1999) the employers have to pay an additional charge of12,5 %--

The Norwegian VAT system is based on similar principles to those applied in the EUcountries. In Norway, however, there is an additional investment tax on assets like machinery,vehicles and office equipment, and on several consumables.The current VAT rate is 23%Investment tax rate is 7%

Someone said, ..."A state with no public education (yes, this is a socialist principle), no minimum wage, no anti-trust laws, no government control over the economy and its short term fluctuations... "

I live in a socialist state in the west, where you never really own your land, you just rent it from the state. The state also seizes property when they want it for whatever. In the 40's, at least a man could own his property, and would get tax deductions for adding improvements to it. Now if you improve your property an assessor comes around and rates it into a higher tax bracket. You pay more if you even paint your house or put in a flower bed. Consequently, a lot of people let the outside of their houses fall into deliberate neglect.

We were better off without minimum wage. It didn't necessarily mean people would get less than minimum wage. Often they would get much more, depending on how hard they worked and how much they earned trust. Minimum wage made employers think, "Why should I pay more?" It took the motivation to motivate employees, out of their system.

Hungary and jugoslawia. Not only did I live and work in both countries but, I also had deep conversations with friends there who lived under that system when it was considered "bad" by their standard. So I suppose in essence I have only seen "reformed" socialism and it sucked too!

This is a false analogy—before the onset of Industrialization we were mostly an agrarian society. Public education was not needed since it did not increase worker productivity. However, compare Industrialization (late 1800’s to early 1900’s)—child workers, pollution, no sanitation in products, long hours, wild economic fluctuations, small middle class etc.

Which period would you rather live in (holding all technological advancements constant)?

I've read Upton Sinclair, among other bits about the late 1800's & early 1900's, and agree that that's a rather horrible period in our history. I'll take modern times, thank you. :)

But I stand by my analogy, because that wasn't my point...I was trying to point out that it's tough to use Africa as an example of "capitalism doesn't work" arguments: we were able to industrialize our agrarian society starting from nearly pure capitalism, whereas African countries are having trouble doing so, mostly because of their governments.

straw mann. 1.A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.

2.An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

Socialism is indeed a questionable enterprise!

If you're going with definition #2, It's a system that YOU'RE defending and arguing the pro side of it. All you have to do is lay it out for us laypeople how that system is superior to the one we enjoy here. Then you can school us about why you continue to live here when "there" is so much better.

A good example of economy ruined by socialism (communist dictatorship) is Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia. In just four years it was taken from a prosperous country that exported grain, to a poverty stricken country dependent on the government. While claiming it was "drought", it can be proven that communism causes drought by the way they mismanage land, crops, money, people, etc. Every country that has fallen to such a style of socialism, has ended up bankrupt, some sooner, and some later, depending on which capitalist countries prop them up for how long.

straw mann. 1.A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.

2.An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.--sepp

Well, name us a few "good" dictatorships then since the media has smeared their good names.---spoken earlier by Sepp

Re-read my comments—nowhere did I praise dictatorships (Socialism is again not a dictatorship).

Hungary and jugoslawia. Not only did I live and work in both countries but, I also had deep conversations with friends there who lived under that system when it was considered "bad" by their standard. So I suppose in essence I have only seen "reformed" socialism and it sucked too!--Sepp

Hungary and Jugoslawia (interesting spelling) are not the best examples—Mexico is a capitalist country and yet, its GDP per capita is not near that of Hungary’s (there is no longer a ‘Jugoslawia’).

Here are some more numbers to consider for your GDP stats...

Norway population 4.4 million

United states population, 295,734,134--sepp

What you are implying makes no sense—GDP per capita is independent of population. In fact, countries with larger populations tend to have a higher per capita.

You're right. "socialism" isn't a dictatorship. Socialism just seems to "occur" during dictatorships.Saddam Husein-socialist dictatorHitler- socialist dictator (national socialism is still socialism)Just to name two of the most prominent not-a-dictatorship-socialist countries in modern history.Why is it that in socialist countries private gun ownership is forbidden or severely restricted? Because those societies aren't free and the elite knows it could never sustain if the peoples had a means to resist. And that sir is why socialist states have become dictatorships. Also funny that socialists in America are the most vocal about dropping the 2nd amendment out of the bill of rights.

"What you are implying makes no sense—GDP per capita is independent of population"

"PER CAPITA" means "per person per unit of population. (see dictionary if need be)"GDP per capita" means exactly that. Gross domestic product per person or, per unit of population. The numbers are relavent and it does make sense figure it out.

Sorry that Hungary and jugoslawia "aren't the best examples" of socialism. Best I could do for where I was living at the time.

You're right. "socialism" isn't a dictatorship. Socialism just seems to "occur" during dictatorships.Saddam Husein-socialist dictatorHitler- socialist dictator (national socialism is still socialism)Just to name two of the most prominent not-a-dictatorship-socialist countries in modern history.Why is it that in socialist countries private gun ownership is forbidden or severely restricted? Because those societies aren't free and the elite knows it could never sustain if the peoples had a means to resist. And that sir is why socialist states have become dictatorships. Also funny that socialists in America are the most vocal about dropping the 2nd amendment out of the bill of rights.--Sepp

You forgot to mention Norway, Canada, Germany (present). Hitler was not a dictator, he was democratically elected (much more than I can say for Bush).

"PER CAPITA" means "per person per unit of population. (see dictionary if need be)"GDP per capita" means exactly that. Gross domestic product per person or, per unit of population. The numbers are relavent and it does make sense figure it out.--Sepp

I know what the per capita means, Einstein. It seems that you don’t however, even with the definition right in front of you.

Per Capita is per person not per population—it doesn’t matter if Norway has 8 million or 8 trillion since output (GDP) tends to increase as well. If I told you Norway had a GDP of 6 trillion and compared it to Switzerland with a GDP of 4 trillion (note, I made these numbers up) then you would be correct to point out the differences in population.

Per Capita is an average--Population is superfluous since it is factored into the GDP and then factored out—yielding per capita.